Terrorism

[Arraya]

Haha

I thought I told you about interpretations, preacher.

As long as somebody does not agree with you it it not universal. It is not a science with numbers. It is a belief system interpreted as many ways as people have looked at it over the years.

You are preaching hate and violence.

What if a muslim does not want to interpret it that way. What do you do then, Preacher.

Tell them they are not true. By preaching to them the “truth”

[KSMountain]

[quote=briansd1]Liberal progressive ideals will always win out, sooner or later. Conservatives just retard progress.[/quote]
It’s not their ideals that concern me, it’s their ideas. I think a lot of times half-baked ideas are thrown out just to “do something”. Then it becomes obvious within sometimes only a couple of years or sometimes more than that that maybe there was a reason things used to be the way they were, and maybe it wasn’t so bad after all.

Take relaxing the 20% down on home loans as an example. Or moratoriums on foreclosures as another. Or unindexed AMT as another. These were all “ideas” that turned out to be not so good. Will nationalized health care also turn out to have been something we should have been more careful about?

Actually I guess the ideals concern me too. That somehow a utopia can be created where the government ensures nothing bad can happen to anyone. Wrong.

I guess I’m doing the strawman thing here – sorry.

Using engineering terminology, to respond to your statement, I’d say if we gave the liberals their way, we’d have an underdamped society. The conservatives add a little damping to hopefully improve stability – at the cost of responsiveness.

Do you agree? Or are the conservatives literally just redneck neanderthals?

[KSMountain]

[quote=briansd1]Liberal progressive ideals will always win out, sooner or later. Conservatives just retard progress.[/quote]
It’s not their ideals that concern me, it’s their ideas. I think a lot of times half-baked ideas are thrown out just to “do something”. Then it becomes obvious within sometimes only a couple of years or sometimes more than that that maybe there was a reason things used to be the way they were, and maybe it wasn’t so bad after all.

Take relaxing the 20% down on home loans as an example. Or moratoriums on foreclosures as another. Or unindexed AMT as another. These were all “ideas” that turned out to be not so good. Will nationalized health care also turn out to have been something we should have been more careful about?

Actually I guess the ideals concern me too. That somehow a utopia can be created where the government ensures nothing bad can happen to anyone. Wrong.

I guess I’m doing the strawman thing here – sorry.

Using engineering terminology, to respond to your statement, I’d say if we gave the liberals their way, we’d have an underdamped society. The conservatives add a little damping to hopefully improve stability – at the cost of responsiveness.

Do you agree? Or are the conservatives literally just redneck neanderthals?

[KSMountain]

[quote=briansd1]Liberal progressive ideals will always win out, sooner or later. Conservatives just retard progress.[/quote]
It’s not their ideals that concern me, it’s their ideas. I think a lot of times half-baked ideas are thrown out just to “do something”. Then it becomes obvious within sometimes only a couple of years or sometimes more than that that maybe there was a reason things used to be the way they were, and maybe it wasn’t so bad after all.

Take relaxing the 20% down on home loans as an example. Or moratoriums on foreclosures as another. Or unindexed AMT as another. These were all “ideas” that turned out to be not so good. Will nationalized health care also turn out to have been something we should have been more careful about?

Actually I guess the ideals concern me too. That somehow a utopia can be created where the government ensures nothing bad can happen to anyone. Wrong.

I guess I’m doing the strawman thing here – sorry.

Using engineering terminology, to respond to your statement, I’d say if we gave the liberals their way, we’d have an underdamped society. The conservatives add a little damping to hopefully improve stability – at the cost of responsiveness.

Do you agree? Or are the conservatives literally just redneck neanderthals?

[KSMountain]

[quote=briansd1]Liberal progressive ideals will always win out, sooner or later. Conservatives just retard progress.[/quote]
It’s not their ideals that concern me, it’s their ideas. I think a lot of times half-baked ideas are thrown out just to “do something”. Then it becomes obvious within sometimes only a couple of years or sometimes more than that that maybe there was a reason things used to be the way they were, and maybe it wasn’t so bad after all.

Take relaxing the 20% down on home loans as an example. Or moratoriums on foreclosures as another. Or unindexed AMT as another. These were all “ideas” that turned out to be not so good. Will nationalized health care also turn out to have been something we should have been more careful about?

Actually I guess the ideals concern me too. That somehow a utopia can be created where the government ensures nothing bad can happen to anyone. Wrong.

I guess I’m doing the strawman thing here – sorry.

Using engineering terminology, to respond to your statement, I’d say if we gave the liberals their way, we’d have an underdamped society. The conservatives add a little damping to hopefully improve stability – at the cost of responsiveness.

Do you agree? Or are the conservatives literally just redneck neanderthals?

[KSMountain]

[quote=briansd1]Liberal progressive ideals will always win out, sooner or later. Conservatives just retard progress.[/quote]
It’s not their ideals that concern me, it’s their ideas. I think a lot of times half-baked ideas are thrown out just to “do something”. Then it becomes obvious within sometimes only a couple of years or sometimes more than that that maybe there was a reason things used to be the way they were, and maybe it wasn’t so bad after all.

Take relaxing the 20% down on home loans as an example. Or moratoriums on foreclosures as another. Or unindexed AMT as another. These were all “ideas” that turned out to be not so good. Will nationalized health care also turn out to have been something we should have been more careful about?

Actually I guess the ideals concern me too. That somehow a utopia can be created where the government ensures nothing bad can happen to anyone. Wrong.

I guess I’m doing the strawman thing here – sorry.

Using engineering terminology, to respond to your statement, I’d say if we gave the liberals their way, we’d have an underdamped society. The conservatives add a little damping to hopefully improve stability – at the cost of responsiveness.

Do you agree? Or are the conservatives literally just redneck neanderthals?

[surveyor]

http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/119721.html

Thus, if his (Hasan’s) Qur’an briefing was any indication—and it damned well should be, Army political-correctness notwithstanding—Hasan’s murderous rampage at Ft. Hood was nothing if not a private jihad, fueled and justifed by the following Qur’anic mandates:
*Surah Muhammad [47]:3ff: “When you encounter the unbelievers on the battlefield, strike off their heads until you have totally defeated them….”
*Surah al-Anfal [8]:12ff: “I will cast dread into the hearts of the unbelievers. Strike off their heads….”
*Surah al-Dukhan [44]:43ff: “Surely the tree of Zamzam [bitterness] will provide food for the sinful. Like molten brass it will boil their insides, like the boiling of scalding water.”
Until it becomes acceptable in Sunni Islam to read such verses as metaphor—as, for example, rhetorical “decapitation” of non-Muslim arguments against Islam—and/or to limit them to the 7th century AD, the Hasans of the world will continue to find rational justification within the Islamic fold for personal jihad against “infidels”—totally apart from any connections to, or encouragement from, al-Qa`idah or any other Islamic terrorist group. Far from being an “extremist,” Hasan was, and is, simply a literalist Sunni Muslim who acted upon the teachings of his holy book, rather than merely pay it lip service.

[surveyor]

http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/119721.html

Thus, if his (Hasan’s) Qur’an briefing was any indication—and it damned well should be, Army political-correctness notwithstanding—Hasan’s murderous rampage at Ft. Hood was nothing if not a private jihad, fueled and justifed by the following Qur’anic mandates:
*Surah Muhammad [47]:3ff: “When you encounter the unbelievers on the battlefield, strike off their heads until you have totally defeated them….”
*Surah al-Anfal [8]:12ff: “I will cast dread into the hearts of the unbelievers. Strike off their heads….”
*Surah al-Dukhan [44]:43ff: “Surely the tree of Zamzam [bitterness] will provide food for the sinful. Like molten brass it will boil their insides, like the boiling of scalding water.”
Until it becomes acceptable in Sunni Islam to read such verses as metaphor—as, for example, rhetorical “decapitation” of non-Muslim arguments against Islam—and/or to limit them to the 7th century AD, the Hasans of the world will continue to find rational justification within the Islamic fold for personal jihad against “infidels”—totally apart from any connections to, or encouragement from, al-Qa`idah or any other Islamic terrorist group. Far from being an “extremist,” Hasan was, and is, simply a literalist Sunni Muslim who acted upon the teachings of his holy book, rather than merely pay it lip service.

[surveyor]

http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/119721.html

Thus, if his (Hasan’s) Qur’an briefing was any indication—and it damned well should be, Army political-correctness notwithstanding—Hasan’s murderous rampage at Ft. Hood was nothing if not a private jihad, fueled and justifed by the following Qur’anic mandates:
*Surah Muhammad [47]:3ff: “When you encounter the unbelievers on the battlefield, strike off their heads until you have totally defeated them….”
*Surah al-Anfal [8]:12ff: “I will cast dread into the hearts of the unbelievers. Strike off their heads….”
*Surah al-Dukhan [44]:43ff: “Surely the tree of Zamzam [bitterness] will provide food for the sinful. Like molten brass it will boil their insides, like the boiling of scalding water.”
Until it becomes acceptable in Sunni Islam to read such verses as metaphor—as, for example, rhetorical “decapitation” of non-Muslim arguments against Islam—and/or to limit them to the 7th century AD, the Hasans of the world will continue to find rational justification within the Islamic fold for personal jihad against “infidels”—totally apart from any connections to, or encouragement from, al-Qa`idah or any other Islamic terrorist group. Far from being an “extremist,” Hasan was, and is, simply a literalist Sunni Muslim who acted upon the teachings of his holy book, rather than merely pay it lip service.

[surveyor]

http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/119721.html

Thus, if his (Hasan’s) Qur’an briefing was any indication—and it damned well should be, Army political-correctness notwithstanding—Hasan’s murderous rampage at Ft. Hood was nothing if not a private jihad, fueled and justifed by the following Qur’anic mandates:
*Surah Muhammad [47]:3ff: “When you encounter the unbelievers on the battlefield, strike off their heads until you have totally defeated them….”
*Surah al-Anfal [8]:12ff: “I will cast dread into the hearts of the unbelievers. Strike off their heads….”
*Surah al-Dukhan [44]:43ff: “Surely the tree of Zamzam [bitterness] will provide food for the sinful. Like molten brass it will boil their insides, like the boiling of scalding water.”
Until it becomes acceptable in Sunni Islam to read such verses as metaphor—as, for example, rhetorical “decapitation” of non-Muslim arguments against Islam—and/or to limit them to the 7th century AD, the Hasans of the world will continue to find rational justification within the Islamic fold for personal jihad against “infidels”—totally apart from any connections to, or encouragement from, al-Qa`idah or any other Islamic terrorist group. Far from being an “extremist,” Hasan was, and is, simply a literalist Sunni Muslim who acted upon the teachings of his holy book, rather than merely pay it lip service.

[surveyor]

http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/119721.html

Thus, if his (Hasan’s) Qur’an briefing was any indication—and it damned well should be, Army political-correctness notwithstanding—Hasan’s murderous rampage at Ft. Hood was nothing if not a private jihad, fueled and justifed by the following Qur’anic mandates:
*Surah Muhammad [47]:3ff: “When you encounter the unbelievers on the battlefield, strike off their heads until you have totally defeated them….”
*Surah al-Anfal [8]:12ff: “I will cast dread into the hearts of the unbelievers. Strike off their heads….”
*Surah al-Dukhan [44]:43ff: “Surely the tree of Zamzam [bitterness] will provide food for the sinful. Like molten brass it will boil their insides, like the boiling of scalding water.”
Until it becomes acceptable in Sunni Islam to read such verses as metaphor—as, for example, rhetorical “decapitation” of non-Muslim arguments against Islam—and/or to limit them to the 7th century AD, the Hasans of the world will continue to find rational justification within the Islamic fold for personal jihad against “infidels”—totally apart from any connections to, or encouragement from, al-Qa`idah or any other Islamic terrorist group. Far from being an “extremist,” Hasan was, and is, simply a literalist Sunni Muslim who acted upon the teachings of his holy book, rather than merely pay it lip service.

[KSMountain]

Hmmm, Arraya, I gotta lean more towards surveyor’s side.

There’s a saying, maybe it’s from Huntington’s “Clash of civilizations” paper (easily found online):
“Islam has bloody borders”

And it turns out to be true – there are islamic-related conflicts going on all *over* the world. Part of this I think is in the nature of Islam that *explicitly* does not separate religion and government.

There are not as many folks trying to overthrow governments in the name of Christianity, as far as I know. In fact didn’t Jesus (per the religion) say “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s”? That to me seems like a directive to accept whatever host government you may fall under, and is a *clear difference* from Islam.

You accuse surveyor of being dogmatic, but you also should not close your mind to the idea that different religions might have different tenets – they’re not all identical!

[KSMountain]

Hmmm, Arraya, I gotta lean more towards surveyor’s side.

There’s a saying, maybe it’s from Huntington’s “Clash of civilizations” paper (easily found online):
“Islam has bloody borders”

And it turns out to be true – there are islamic-related conflicts going on all *over* the world. Part of this I think is in the nature of Islam that *explicitly* does not separate religion and government.

There are not as many folks trying to overthrow governments in the name of Christianity, as far as I know. In fact didn’t Jesus (per the religion) say “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s”? That to me seems like a directive to accept whatever host government you may fall under, and is a *clear difference* from Islam.

You accuse surveyor of being dogmatic, but you also should not close your mind to the idea that different religions might have different tenets – they’re not all identical!

[KSMountain]

Hmmm, Arraya, I gotta lean more towards surveyor’s side.

There’s a saying, maybe it’s from Huntington’s “Clash of civilizations” paper (easily found online):
“Islam has bloody borders”

And it turns out to be true – there are islamic-related conflicts going on all *over* the world. Part of this I think is in the nature of Islam that *explicitly* does not separate religion and government.

There are not as many folks trying to overthrow governments in the name of Christianity, as far as I know. In fact didn’t Jesus (per the religion) say “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s”? That to me seems like a directive to accept whatever host government you may fall under, and is a *clear difference* from Islam.

You accuse surveyor of being dogmatic, but you also should not close your mind to the idea that different religions might have different tenets – they’re not all identical!

[KSMountain]

Hmmm, Arraya, I gotta lean more towards surveyor’s side.

There’s a saying, maybe it’s from Huntington’s “Clash of civilizations” paper (easily found online):
“Islam has bloody borders”

And it turns out to be true – there are islamic-related conflicts going on all *over* the world. Part of this I think is in the nature of Islam that *explicitly* does not separate religion and government.

There are not as many folks trying to overthrow governments in the name of Christianity, as far as I know. In fact didn’t Jesus (per the religion) say “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s”? That to me seems like a directive to accept whatever host government you may fall under, and is a *clear difference* from Islam.

You accuse surveyor of being dogmatic, but you also should not close your mind to the idea that different religions might have different tenets – they’re not all identical!

[Author]

Posts